Cory Lidle Accident Details

Increasing your angle of bank in a turn......doesn't necessarily get you out of trouble if you haven't properly planned ahead.


http://www.aopa.org/asf/epilot_acc/nyc07ma003.html?WT.mc_id=090417epilot&WT.mc_sect=sap

 

The classic stall definition does not work for most accidents now. In a straight ahead stall, the wing loses lift, the flight controls still work, you put the nose down, and airspeed increases as you fall until the wing starts flying again and everything is OK. If you look at what killed 38 victory P-38 ace Tommy McGuire in WW-II, it was described as an accelerated or high speed stall, caused by a bad decision to retain external tanks during a 4v1 engagement against an excellent pilot. In fact, McGuire departed his aircraft and did not have sufficient altitude to recover.

For modern aircraft, we say the aircraft has departed (controlled flight), and serious actions, mostly involving reducing angle of attack, are necessary to regain control. Many modern aircraft do not exhibit classic stall characteristics and have never been subjected to stall testing, because it is too dangerous to do so. When these aircraft depart, the departure is quite often accompanied with a violent, uncontrolled yaw to either side, and rapid loss of altitude.

For light aircraft, most of which have been tested with standard straight-ahead stalls, the aircraft never departs because the flight controls are still fully functional, and the aircraft recovers to flying airspeed very benignly. What most light aircraft pilots have never seen is a departure, where the aircraft's directional attitude cannot be controlled and the departure is often accompanied by the same violent yaw slice and rapid loss of altitude noted in modern, high performance aircraft. This is most often caused by a combination of bank and commanded angle of attack (AoA) outside the aircraft's flight envelope, which inexperienced pilots have a difficult time recognizing. Recovery involves rapid reduction of AoA until the flight controls respond and, if possible, rolling wings level until full control is reestablished. Recoveries from departures are rarely taught or experienced in light aircraft, because they are inherently very dangerous and may exceed the structural limits of the aircraft being flown. Spins are mild departures where sufficient altitude is preplanned to recover the aircraft. Again, a relatively benign recovery follows, where the flight controls are effective during nearly all of the maneuver. Most modern, high performance aircraft are never spun, because descent rates can exceed 50,000'/minute.

Solution? Beats me, but more training is required to make relatively inexperienced pilots with no aerobatics experience understand a departure is a violent event and how to counter it. Might have saved Lidle, might not, but some of the accident investigation terminology needs to be changed to better describe a pilot departing his aircraft and never being able to recover.

If I have ever seen a more classic way to use a simulator, teaching a student pilot to recognize an impending departure and counter one once departed is definitely it. Seeing the rapid onset and experiencing the extreme altitude loss is an eye opener. We do just that with military pilots. Cannot afford to do it in real aircraft. Survival rate is too low.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

I can thank the good Lord for the "extreme" and strenuous stall and spin training that I got some 65 years ago. I was put through the wringer with every departure, accelerated, and plain old stall/ spin that you could think of. "Departure and Accelerated " were terms unheard of then. High speed stalls, gliding stalls, crossed control stalls, climbing stalls, slow speed stalls, and spins, spins, spins were grilled into me. And it saved my life many times. "Too dangerous" is not having the training. I was taught spins and loops before I soloed and it was old hat by the time I was on my own. Airplanes still stall and spin and every pilot should not only recognize a stall or spin but know how to get out of them. They can happen sometimes when you least expect them and you don't have the opportunity to " recognize them". I have had it happen to me several times and it is no big thing to get out of them. AND you should have enough instruction to keep from getting into them inadvertently in the first place.
Terry has made an important and well written essay on the incident in New York and it emphasizes the need for more training in preventing the stall/ spin, and high bank, high angle of attack situations.
Switches

 

I would have to add here about an NTSB article in Aviation week about 10 year ago that came out comparing accidents from a stall/spin. It looked at Canada and the USA where it is taught as part of a licence syllabus in one country but not the other. Strangely in the country where recovery was taught the number of accidents per aircraft, the percentage was greater than the country where it wasn't. That led the NTSB to consider if more stall spins were entered and not recovered from because students thought they could as opposed to not being taught recovery so students were staying well away.

I'll try to find a link, it's certainly not what I was expecting to read.

 

I am a proponent of stall/spin training for all pilots.

When I was a student pilot over 20 years ago, I nearly killed myself by not properly respecting my aircraft and not having been taught the skills to recover from a spin once I got into it. I was practicing power on stalls, straight ahead in fairly gusty midwest summer conditions. Right before the stall warning sounded a wing dropped due to turbulence and I man-handled the C152 using aileron AND rudder (duh!) to bring the wing back up. Stall hits, spin ensues and I am looking a farmland spinnng in the windshield. I had never received spin training up to that point, but had read about it in aviation mags and watched videos. By the grace of God I remembered what I read - pull power, push the yoke forward and level the ailerons, and apply rudder in the direction opposite the spin. I got out in about 1.5 turns but lost quite a bit of altitude - it was a C152, so the spin was mild. Flew straight back to the airport shaking from the adrenaline in my system, parked the plane and debriefed with my instructor. I consider myself to be very lucky. Even after that incident, my instructor did not feel that we needed to do spin recoveries even though my flight school had a Citabria. I was only 16 at that time and did not really know better to insist on spin/aero training.

From my perspective, avoidance recognition is extremely important, but receiving and practicing recovery techniques in an actual spin is critical. Regardless of the flight school's training syllabus, every student pilot should seek-out spin training and tailwheel training (for the rudder skills).

Just my 2 cents and I know that there will be a lot of folks who disagree.

 

I've done my share of spins, both teaching and just for fun.

And yet I'm a bit mixed on the value of spin training for most pilots. Why? Because the skills you learn in a C152 or a Citabria may not transfer to higher performance aircraft-- particularly multiengine aircraft with wing mounted engines. Those aircraft may not be recoverable from a spin, no matter how good your technique-- and very likely not recoverable with any sort of reasonable altitude loss.

So if you think because you know how to recover from a spin in a 152 that you can do it in a 310, you'll be in for a shock.

There is no good reason to enter a spin in the first place, if you have good judgment.

All of that said, I encourage anyone who is a pilot to continue to seek out education, and that education can include aerobatics and spin training-- just don't get overconfident.

 

One of my close calls in a spinning aircraft happened over the Gulf of Mexico at 3500 feet. My passenger was a guy who was going to get flight training and liked to go up with me in the PT-19. We were heading back to the field after some fooling around over the beach when he spotted a huge shark in the shallows near where I lived. He yelled to turn around so that we could get a better look. I yanked the Fairchild around in a tight turn and leaned back to see the fish when I remembered that I wasn't in the Stearman and I was pulling too hard. At that moment the PT-19 must have remembered the same thing and as I was easing back pressure, it did a quick over-the -top break and started over into a spin. By the time the nose was up vertical I had centered rudder and I had the stick full forward but it did a sloppy one turn spin just to show me that it could . The long pullout ate up all the altitude and we did an unrehearsed low buzz job over the beach. My passenger LOVED IT and wanted to do it again. I had to go home and change a few things so we didn't do another one. I have tried to duplicate the maneuver but could not repeat it for some reason. I think that I must have fed in some top rudder when I leaned way back to look at the shark.
A friend of mine did the same thing at the end of a buzz job in a-19 but the hammerhead stall at the end of the pull-up deteriorated into an over -the- top stall and fatal spin. I had just enough altitude to recover . He didn't.
So spin recognition is just as important as recovery techniques in my mind.
Switches

 

I should have added the dangerous effect of aerodynamic shadow that can pop up when a low winged aircraft can get into a slip when it is in a steep turn. The resultant loss of lift in the high or shadowed wing will be no different than if the wing wasn't there and that can be a big problem. Slipping or skidding a swept wing aircraft will produce the same effect.

 

Looks like an attorney on a fishing expedition...
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=4ff086bb-a4cb-4463-bc51-8a8e0bec92e3&

 

Ah, Yes! The good ol' attorney who has seen too many Hollywood versions of flying accidents and has determined that a bent side stick caused the crash. Bound up ailerons and faulty aircraft design and ....You're right on, the ambulance chaser has discovered a certain hidden and mysterious cause of the crash that has nothing to do with the actual cause that was a turn into a limited space that was aggravated by a crosswind that shortened up the space in which to turn the aircraft. I would relish the opportunity to testify for the defense in this matter! Talk about flying into a coffin corner!

 

The editors note at the end of that article sums things up pretty well perfectly....

 

You always just remind me of the respect I have for you when you mention such
timelines as this.... I'm almost 50 - but you were flying when my FATHER was young.

Just sayin'..... love your posts, Bob



Jedi

 

My only claim to fame is being allowed to last a long time and I look up to those who have really accomplished things with their flying. I just like to jabber a lot about almost nothing.

 

The NY jury sided with Cirrus earlier today in its argument that pilot error was to blame.

 

Which, of course, it was...

 

Bob, any chance you could explain this more? Not sure I follow the "aerodynamic shadowing concept" as you outlined above.

 

I'll do what I can but I'm no expert in this stuff. The incident that I mentioned occurred because the airplane was allowed to slip in the direction of the low wing. The fuselage stopped airflow over the upper or down wind wing and there was no lift due to the lack of airflow. The blanked wing stalled and the airplane snapped in the direction of the stalled wing because of asymmetrical lift. The pilot was at low altitude in a PT-19 and couldn't recover from the spin. This happened to me once in a PT-19 when I must have fed in some top rudder when I was in a very steep and hard pull turn to look at something. It broke and snapped over the top and I was lucky enough to have just enough altitude to recover. Adequate dihedral and washout in wing geometry of most modern low wing aircraft probably prevent this from happening now. Low wing loading is a plus, also.I did some dumb things when I was young and stupid.
Hope this explains some of it.

 

I did a terrible job of describing aerodynamic shadow so I will try to improve it. The incident in question occurred when the pilot attempted a wing over after a low pass over the airport. He pulled up to near vertical and fed in right rudder to turn the airplane 180 deg. at the apex of the turn.He fed in LEFT aileron to keep the advancing wing from rolling the airplane over but the airplane had lost too much airspeed and it began to slip in the direction of the lower wing. The airflow over the higher and advancing wing was blocked by the fuselage as the plane was slipping thus denying it of lift. The higher wing stalled because of the aerodynamic shadow caused by the fuselage and the airplane entered a 4 turn spin that terminated at ground level. I think that I was doing a bit of mental aviating in my first explanation and assumed that you were with me. Sorry.

 

Thanks Bob, I kinda thought that was what was meant but thought I should ask to be clear. You and Taz are a wealth of info!

Thanks again,

Mike

 

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/MIKOYAN-MIG-21-UM/1967-MIKOYAN-MIG-21-UM/1163877.htm

 

Would look great with challenge wheels...but very, very hard to show at Villa d'Este.